Grounded originally in Benthamite radicalism, the Westminster incorporated the London Review molded by John Stuart Mill in the 1830s and the Foreign Quarterly Review in the 1840s. Before and after these amalgamations, the Westminster broadcast insightful appraisals of the newspaper, of eminent periodicals, and of the status of journalists.

1. [Fox, W. J.]. “Men and Things in 1823.” 1 (1824): 1–18.

Estimated that two-penny magazines, “some of them respectably got up,” were “circulating to the amount of several thousand weekly.” “Periodical literature has enlarged its boundaries,” so it attracted those of “higher talent.”

2. [Bowring, John]. “Politics and Literature of Russia.” 1 (1824): 80–101.

Hoped that the intellectual progress of Russian women, already evidenced by those active in the country's periodical writing, might diminish despotism. See Foreign Quarterly Review 16: 445.

3. [Mill, James]. “Periodical Literature: Edinburgh Review.” 1 (1824): 206–49; [John Stuart Mill], 505–41; [James Mill]. “Quarterly Review.” 2 (1824): 463–503.

The senior Mill limited his essays to criticism, notably in the Edinburgh and Quarterly, because the scope of periodical literature was so wide. Periodicals that aimed for “immediate effect” echoed “opinions in vogue,” usually those of the powerful. The Edinburgh and Quarterly addressed the “aristocratic classes” from different perspectives. Although Edinburgh authors were people of “higher intellect,” the Review seemed unwilling to take a stand on press freedom (22: 72) but was ready to pander to prejudice.